I don't buy all the poo-poo-ing of this scenario. We all saw firearms being confiscated in New Orleans because of a "state of emergency" or some other phrasing of de-facto martial law. Hillary Clinton (and most of the far-left Democratic party, for that matter) does not like us. Look what's going on with Delay and Frist ... you think the Democrats can't take this country? If Hillary takes the White House and the Dems take Congress, you don't think they would confiscate our firearms? Have you forgotten the AWB? Don't kid yourself.

As for the scenario: I honestly can't say what I'd do. I literally hate the very idea that I'd find myself in a position to be forced to break the law. If firearms confiscation was the law, though, I may have to go there. As they say ... if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. I don't like thinking that I may have to be an outlaw.

Thankfully, I live in the smallest county in KY, on several hundred acres laced with caves and mostly wooded. The guns could easily be hidden. If confiscation was left up to the local LEOs, that could also give me options. As I guess is the case in most small, rural areas, my local Sheriff is under-manned and under-funded. I think he hunts. I'd be surprised - shocked, actually - if he took time away from the local meth cookers and car wrecks to try and take the locals' guns away. He has his priorities in order, I bet.

Of course, if the Nat'l Guard and/or military were involved (the movement toward involving the military in domestic "emergencies" completely freaks me out), that might be another story. But I watch the "news". People can hide in caves in the mountains for a long, long time...

I think the dumbest of politicians knows that total firearm confiscation would be a suicide mission.
I think there would be very few gun owners that would just hand over their guns without a fight, myself included.
Confiscation would have to be done by the military, because I don't know any cops personally that would take part in this, even if it meant their job. I like my guns, and freedom, much better than I like my job.
I think it would ignite a civil war.
I know how polls and statistics can be skewed to show anything you want, but fwiw, I remember a poll of military personnel several years ago, and a huge majority stated they would NOT carry out orders to confiscate weapons from American citizens.

I have to say, no matter what the dictionary definition, I've never seen the word "freak" used in a positive manner.

Python guy:

This is a good question. Make jokes all you want. It happened in Louisiana. It didn't even take the federal gov't stepping in, the city did it. If it can happen in Louisiana, it can definitely happen in New York. It can happen and will happen again somewhere, mark my words.

Python guy, what would you do if the police came to your door and asked for your guns? Obviously, they know what you have, so you can't hide anything. I take it you would simply hand them over. I think most owners of registered guns would. Would you work toward doing away with martial law? If so, how?

I think most people, most gun owners included, simply trust the gov't to do what's in their best interests. And they will give the gov't the legal power to do whatever it wants. If you don't think the gov't is bigger than ever before and has more power than ever before, I'd have to disagree with you. If you think the gov't has your best interests in mind, I disagree with you.

If or should I say when we give the federal gov't the power to declare martial law whenever the president "says so" we have to expect something like this to happen. It's simply the nanny state giving birth to the police state. We all want to live in perfect safety, right? The federal gov't is catching heck for not responding quickly enough to a natural disaster. They're not allowed to respond until the state asks them to. They want to power to send the military in whenever the president sees it is needed. Trust me, in my lifetime the president will have power to send federal troops into a state whenever he wants. Posse comitatus is outdated in most people's minds. All we need now is to let down our guard.

That can't happen here!

That's what a lot of people said about the civil war. No way American soldiers are going to shoot other Americans. Boy, were they wrong. Bad enough they were shooting military- they burned the families' houses back home, too. And today's enlightened masses say the gov't will never go around knocking on doors to take guns. Never under estimate what a government is willing to do to it's own people.

I'm also not looking to discuss politics in the tactical forum. I deliberately put this thread in the tactical forum.

So, with that in mind...

What do you do when the President has sufficient power to declare martial law for a flu epidemic, earthquake, or other incident that effects a region of the US, and the military is present to declare martial law and confiscate weapons? Your bill of rights has just been suspended (that's what martial law is), so there is no arguing with the 4 men with M4's in front of your house with a truckful of all your neighbors' guns.

Tactically, there are several different "gun reclaimation" crews in your neighborhood, and if you choose to open fire, a squad of perhaps 20 army soldiers or LEO will be surrounding your home in seconds or minutes.

Do you attempt to hide the weapons for the purpose of self-defense against criminals waiting for your neighborhood's guns to be missing? Criminals will be looking for easy meat in this type of situation...

Do you fight back against the 20+ army boys in your neighborhood and all the reinforcements they can bring?

If something big enough comes around that they do consider confiscating weapons, I think chances are they're going to be too busy trying to deal with it to actually do the confiscation.

I mean, seriously, they only got around to trying in New Orleans after things had calmed down, and it seemed like they were only doing it to try to convince people who had stayed to leave.

IF they wanted to try it on a national level, they would have to do a thorough search of every residence in the country. If you know they're on the way, what's to stop you from sneaking a few off somewhere else? National gun confiscation would be a Sisyphean task.

There would probably be considerable uproar over wasting resources to round up guns instead of dealing with whatever disaster convinced them it might be a good idea.

Can you think of any large scale regional or national emergency in the last 200 years where the military WASN'T involved? In my hometown the NG plowed the roads when the snow was REALLY bad.

As for the military participating in firearm confisation, remember that our oath is to the Constitution first and foremost. US Army units present in New Orleans, RA and NG both, refused to participate in the NO firearm confiscation. ALSO a federal court ruled the confisation illegal and unconstitutional... which sets a precident for future such actions.

Vigilance is admirable, but this scenario might be just a bit "tinfoil hat" at his point. If Billary gets into the White House (again) THEN I'll start to worry a bit.

Quote:

Of course, if the Nat'l Guard and/or military were involved (the movement toward involving the military in domestic "emergencies" completely freaks me out),

__________________
I am a Soldier. I fight where I'm told, and I win where I fight."

Ron Paul says indictment story is far more damaging than media is portraying, avian flu martial law provisions aimed at gun confiscation

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones | October 12 2005

Congressman Ron Paul has accused the Bush administration of attempting to set in motion a militarized police state in America by enacting gun confiscation martial law provisions in the event of an avian flu pandemic. Paul also slammed as delusional and dangerous plans to invade Iran, Syria, North Korea and China.

Ron Paul represents the 14th Congressional district of Texas. He also serves on the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee, and the International Relations committee.

Paul appeared on the Alex Jones show yesterday and raised some interesting points about the possibility of imminent indictments of top Bush administration figures.

"I think there's a lot more excitement coming and it's not going to be good for the Republicans," stated Paul.

"The things that I hear have to do with Karl Rove and Abramoff and that's much much worse than anybody would believe and it involves DeLay as well."

"And that type of an indictment will be much more serious than the indictment of shifting campaign funds around.....there's some political infighting which could make that really interesting."

On the subject of the police state, Paul stated,

"If we don't change our ways we will go the way of Rome and I see that as rather sad.....the worst things happen when you get the so-called Republican conservatives in charge from Nixon on down, big government flourishes under Republicans."

"It's really hard to believe it's happening right in front of us. Whether it's the torture or the process of denying habeas corpus to an American citizen."

"I think the arrogance of power that they have where they themselves are like Communists....in the sense that they decide what is right. The Communist Party said that they decided what was right or wrong, it wasn't a higher source."

Paul responded to President Bush's announcement last week that he would order the use of military assets to police America in the event of an avian flu outbreak.

"To me it's so strange that the President can make these proposals and it's even plausible. When he talks about martial law dealing with some epidemic that might come later on and having forced quarantines, doing away with Posse Comitatus in order to deal with natural disasters, and hardly anybody says anything. People must be scared to death."

Paul, himself a medical doctor, agreed that the bird flu threat was empty fearmongering.

"I believe it is the President hyping this and Rumsfeld, but it has to be in combination with the people being fearful enough that they will accept the man on the white horse. My first reaction going from my political and medical background is that it's way overly hyped and to think that they have gone this far with it, without a single case in the whole country and they're willing to change the law and turn it into a military state? That is unbelievable! They're determined to have martial law."

Paul opined that the martial law provisions now being promoted by the Bush administration were a direct response to people's unwillingness to relinquish their firearms, as was seen in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

"I think they're concerned about the remnant, the remnant of those individuals who don't buy into stuff and think that they should take care of themselves on their own, that they should have their own guns and their own provisions and they don't want to depend on the government at all and I think that is a threat to those who want to hold power. They don't want any resistance to their authoritarian rule."

Paul opined that the government was on a delusional power trip that threatened the country.

"These guys are ready to start a war with Iran, Syria, North Korea or China. They can't possibly do that, it's so insane, we don't have the money, we don't have the troops, we probably don't even have the ammunition."

"But, if they are truly delusional they just might do something that's totally irrational."

Paul expressed his hope that finally some conservatives are waking up to the fact that the Bush administration is a trojan horse, especially after arch-liberal Harriet Miers was chosen by Bush to supposedly move the Supreme Court to the right, even though her record is atrocious and she has been involved in the past covering up for the Bush crime family's activities.

1. Some guns may or may not already be hid.
2. Some guns are definately with in close proximaty at all times.
3. No I don't go out in a blaze of glory, I do my best to live to fight another day. Besides if I go out, it sure won't be painted as "Glory" by the infotainment media.
4. Being vocal on forums is more than I should really be doing. What I would do then is, and has been pre-arranged with no way to for me disclose what it would be. Other than to say that this has been a consideration before.

__________________
If more laws restricting our rights will make us free from harm, why aren't we safe yet? We are only less free.

When faced with impossible overwhelming odds, prudance would dictate the only thing left is to figure out what is possible, and to do it.

Punishment for all crimes should increase until the recitivism rate approaches zero.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.